A weekly interview or so would take the magic away.imho.
She is putting me to sleep by reading a script....Let me give an example of what I might consider a high bar for explicatory colloquy:
Hardisj,Also, look in to Voicemeeter Potato. It acts as a virtual interface and you can set up EQ to your voice before it goes "out". It's free (though, you can donate) and it's a very useful piece of software.
I watch her videos all the time. She explains things well and isn't caught up in the "woo" of science.Let me give an example of what I might consider a high bar for explicatory colloquy:
Hardisj,
I looked at Voicemeeter Potato and it looks like a useful piece of software. Unfortunately, it does not work on a Mac. I found a similar piece of software called SoundDesk which works on a Mac. In the end however, I don't need either of those pieces of software, because my RME TotalMix FX software has an EQ, Reverb and a few other audio processing bits that will work. I just need to get up to speed on how to use them. Thanks for the suggestion.
Let me give an example of what I might consider a high bar for explicatory colloquy:
She is putting me to sleep by reading a script....
I gotta go with Ravi Zacharias as equally high, but more understandable and engaging. I think Amir has the same skill.
She should convince you it's not by Free Will that that occurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias
There was a Church lady across the street from me at the old house. She hated Halloween, but for Christmas she'd erect a little Nativity scene in her front yard flanked by Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph the Reindeer.
I watch her videos all the time. She explains things well and isn't caught up in the "woo" of science.
She's definitely on the skeptical side of science. From watching her speak she has a bone to pick with "the way" scientific findings are presented to the public.from my brief viewing, it appears she is not caught up in the findings of science either
She's definitely on the skeptical side of science. From watching her speak she has a bone to pick with "the way" scientific findings are presented to the public.
Count me as one. All I heard in watching that video was, "that is not free will... but you may think you have free will.... but that is not free will...." It was such a monotone continuous set of similar words that I could not latch onto any argument she was making. In sharp contrast, I found Randi's video quite engaging and easy to follow speech. It seemed he was talking to me and not just reading a teleprompter as fast as he could.The real problem is that the general public doesn't have the background to assimilate such findings. This is even true of the 30% with an undergraduate degree.
I too lost my train of thought with her monologue. I lost it at the same point too. The delivery is really lacking.Count me as one. All I heard in watching that video was, "that is not free will... but you may think you have free will.... but that is not free will...." It was such a monotone continuous set of similar words that I could not latch onto any argument she was making. In sharp contrast, I found Randi's video quite engaging and easy to follow speech. It seemed he was talking to me and not just reading a teleprompter as fast as he could.
Did anyone else have that problem with the first video?
You mean like Ask Paul (McGowan) on YouTube?